MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W219274365

Bagging Europe's groceries

2000· article· en· W219274365 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Gurdjian, George Kerschbaumer, Michael Kliger, Johanna Waterous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe McKinsey Quarterly · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisConsolidation (business)BusinessHomogeneousMarket shareQuarter (Canadian coin)Competition (biology)GeographyMarketingFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Takeovers in Europe's grocery-retailing sector work best on the national level. But pressure to grow and the factor are forcing big supermarket chains to look abroad. European grocery retailers are on a shopping spree. The results of a McKinsey analysis of the 400 largest acquisitions in the sector show that the volume of corporate takeovers more than quadrupled--rising from $2.9 billion to $12.4 billion--between 1994 and 1998 (Exhibit 1, on the next spread). Yet a comparison with North America's retail grocery sector suggests that its European counterpart is only at the beginning of a period of consolidation. For, while the top five companies in the United States have a 35 percent share of the US market, the top five in Europe have only a 26 percent share of theirs. Until recently, grocery retailers in Canada and the United States dominated a region or two at most. Today, the strongest have extended their hegemony to multiple markets, and these super-regional market leaders are earning higher returns than their smaller competitors. At the beginning of the 1990s, European grocery retailers grew mostly at the national level: from 1991 to 1994, the top ten realized almost 90 percent of their growth at home. In the next four years, the tables turned: almost half of the growth recorded then stemmed from European cross-border expansion, mostly by acquisition--a trend that is accelerating. Consumer tastes are more homogeneous in the United States than they are in Europe, and this makes it harder for European grocery retailers to realize advantages of scale and scope by operating across different European markets. But there is a general trend toward converging tastes and lifestyles, particularly among younger consumers in Europe, and it will speed up with the introduction of the euro, since cross-border shopping will become more common and manufacturers will sell increasing numbers of identical products in many European markets. Despite the numerous obstacles, European retailers must therefore act now. Leadership positions in the European grocery retailing sector will be decided during the next couple of years--indeed, perhaps in only months. We believe that the industry is likely to develop in one of two ways: either a European grocery champions' league or strong regional fortresses. It is too early to say which outcome will prevail, but we can analyze the important drivers, such as capital markets and competitive pressures, as well as the economic rationale behind the present wave of consolidation. Leaders under pressure A look at the composition of the market value of grocery retailers such as METRO (Germany) and Casino (France) shows that current cash flows account for only one-third of their capitalization and investors' growth expectations for the rest. Since such retailers are active mainly in saturated markets, growth could stem either from international expansion or from acquisitions. By contrast, British retailers such as Safeway and Sainsbury don't carry a growth premium; their current performance almost completely explains their current market value. Because these companies seem to lack the credibility needed for future growth, they suffer from low market-to-book valuations, which put management under heavy pressure and make them potential targets for takeover. The factor increases such pressures. Since moving into Germany, with the acquisition of Wertkauf (1997) and Interspar (1998), and into the United Kingdom, with the acquisition of ASDA (1999), the US company has shown that it sees Europe as more than a test market. The French chains Carrefour and Promodes reacted quickly to Wal-Mart by announcing their merger, putting them one step ahead of competitors in Belgium, France, Portugal, South America, Spain, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, after years of making acquisitions solely outside Europe, Ahold (based in the Netherlands) acquired 50 percent of ICA, the leading Scandinavian grocery retailer. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe McKinsey QuarterlySame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207